Political Parties
News & Commentary | Archive

BCRA imposes broad prohibitions on political party involvement with soft money. The prohibition is largely absolute for national party committees, and less for state and local parties. With the exception of a limited form of soft money known as "Levin funds," state and local parties may not use soft money to finance "Federal election activities," defined to include certain activities, conducted at certain times and in certain ways. Beyond these broad general themes lie a host of interpretations and complex applications.

"Ambiguity" in Jim Bopp's Case for the RNC

     Yesterday's posting noted the alliance of Jim Bopp and the institutional Republican Party in bringing down McCain-Feingold.  The lawyer who has made a name and a cause of challenging this law finds a new client with a fresh interest in his work.  The RNC wants access to lucrative sources of money that the law as now written prohibits it from reaching, and Bopp has had the success for independent groups, in suing for new and unrestricted funding alternatives, that the party now demands for itself.  The papers Bopp has filed for the RNC shows how the lawyer intends to build on prior victories for the groups to win this one for his new client, the party.  They show, too, that this may not be one of Jim's easier days in the courtroom.

 

Hybrid Ads and Public Financing Reform

    Reading Jeanne Cummings' report in Politico on pending initiatives to "save campaign finance," one notes the reference to provisions to close out certain issues—some would say, "loopholes"— in the administration of a publicly financed spending limit.  Cummings refers to advertising budgets shared by the candidates and the parties, and she must mean "hybrid ads," the cost of which are split between the Presidential candidate and the party on the basis of the benefit to the party of including in the communication a "generic" promotional reference to party candidates as a class.  The candidate pays the candidate share and the party its own, each one having derived value from the joint communication venture.  For the candidate, this is money saved; and for the party, it money well spent, fruitful for the candidate and the party alike.

 

At the Commission Today: A Question of What Can Be Said to the Voters

     The Federal Election Commission will today consider a question raised  by the Virginia Democratic Party about the proposed distribution of literature under a statutory exemption for “slate cards” and other “printed listings” of candidates.

     So what, you ask?

 

Parties and Their Complicated (Legal) Relationship To Their Candidates

   Do parties corrupt their own candidates? Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics asks, as have others before, and it thinks the answer is clear. And since he is sure of the answer, he questions why we bother with limits on coordinated spending by parties for the benefit of their own candidates.

Party Woes

     A Center for Competitive Politics posting by Michael Schrimpf returns to the familiar question of McCain-Feingold’s contribution to weaker political parties.  He totes up the spending numbers and decides that, without the soft money denied to them by statute, the parties’ have lost ground to outside groups.  CCP is only moderately alarmed:  it holds no brief for limits on outside groups but it also sees little point in a statutory blow to parties. 

 

Also...

Reform in Context (in Politics)  2/6/08

A Bleak Christmas for Parties?  12/19/07

In Defense of the Conventions as Advertising, and in Search of Resources  9/17/07

Hybrids before the Federal Election Commission  7/10/07

Worrying about the “Hybrids”: the FEC and the Parties  5/9/07

Perspectives on Reform, before the Senate Rules Committee  4/18/07

A Proposal for Parties: The Uses of Deregulation In a Regulated System  4/17/07

Drinking Because of McCain-Feingold  4/2/07

The FEC (In)Active on the HyBrids  3/23/07

Bananas  3/7/07